PA LEO Threatens OC Citizen

[RallySoob]

I don't care how polite he was being, he was acting like an a**. A permit to carry does not give you a right to argue with cops or refuse to comply with their instructions. They still have authority over you. If they are not aware of the exact law they will sort it out after they figure out if you're legal or not. Why don't people get this? And since when does a CCW allow you to open carry?

That's immediately what I thought. If I were in the OC shoes I would have done exactly as the officer told me regardless if the officer was wrong or not. Its an issue to be sorted out later. It's not like the OC is going to talk the cop into leaving him alone. I would have been repeating the request to ask them to review the directive he mentioned while doing exactly as they said. That's all you can do... And I probably would have informed the police I was recording them from the beginning so that they could not use that against me later. I believe it is a felony to record a police officer without their knowledge. I am surprised the police left his recorder running and that they gave it back to him without deleting the recording. A real crooked cop would have don't that... so these are just over zealous cops.

You have to understand cops are trained to 'freak out' at the sight of a gun so don't be surprised when they do so. I don't open carry because I don't want problems for myself. I think its my legal right but I'm not willing to go through that huge pita and then get a lawyer just to prove it. Good way to lose your CHL if you ask me. Everyone made mistakes here... I think the OC guy was asking for it when he decided not to obey the officers commands initially. Everyone knows you have to do what an officer says ESPECIALLY if you are carrying a gun...that's a piece of common sense this OC didn't realize. His attitude was initially to be a hard-*** until psycho cop showed up and told him to shut the $%^& up. I don't see the cops getting even a slap on the hand for their actions. If they do then great! I'm all for it but I just don't see it happening because the OC escalated the situation when he refused to cooperate. He should have done exactly as he was told and let the cops make ALL the mistakes. That was his only chance. The legality of OC with a CHL is a separate issue that will probably be long drawn out court situation ending in the guy having his CHL revoked and getting off the charge with a bunch of lawyer fee's

 

[tionico]

Read the Pennsylvania law... can't carry in a city of rhe first class.... unless you have a LICENSE to carry.... it does not specify concealed or open. How can one conceal a long gun? They are named as prohibitred without the license.

Citizen plainly and calmly states he has a license to possess a firearm, that his carry is legal.. cop ignores, goes potty mouth and power trip, begins ordering the citizen about like trash.... meanwhile citizen wishes to PROVIDE his identification AND firearms permit, which the cop denies.... down onn your knees, indeed.

Punk pottymouth cops, lying to each other, "he refused to cooperate" with unlawful orders, meanwhile trying to provide proof of identity and his license to possess. I hope he sues big time... false arrest, unlawful orders, abusive behaviour, I can only guess they took his iron...... unlawfully. Stupid cops even admit "hey, we just had the training about this....."... why did it take eight to ten potty mouth punks to deal with this one law abiding citizen.. meanwhile, someone near them made off with a five hundred dollar cell phone from a local business. Too bad all the punk cops were "busy" and couldn't respond..... makes me really want to go visit Philly. Yeah, right.

 

[Riot]

Read the Pennsylvania law... can't carry in a city of rhe first class.... unless you have a LICENSE to carry.... it does not specify concealed or open. How can one conceal a long gun? They are named as prohibitred without the license.

Citizen plainly and calmly states he has a license to possess a firearm, that his carry is legal.. cop ignores, goes potty mouth and power trip, begins ordering the citizen about like trash.... meanwhile citizen wishes to PROVIDE his identification AND firearms permit, which the cop denies.... down onn your knees, indeed.

Punk pottymouth cops, lying to each other, "he refused to cooperate" with unlawful orders, meanwhile trying to provide proof of identity and his license to possess. I hope he sues big time... false arrest, unlawful orders, abusive behaviour, I can only guess they took his iron...... unlawfully. Stupid cops even admit "hey, we just had the training about this....."... why did it take eight to ten potty mouth punks to deal with this one law abiding citizen.. meanwhile, someone near them made off with a five hundred dollar cell phone from a local business. Too bad all the punk cops were "busy" and couldn't respond..... makes me really want to go visit Philly. Yeah, right.

He did refuse to get on the ground, but if you hear in the back you hear him lying about the guy's hands saying "he wouldn't take his hands out of his pockets" but you can hear him say, plainly "keep your hands right there". So even if they were in his pockets, he was leaving them there per the Sergeant. So there is no doubt that he was lying, or that the Open Carry dude expected a confrontation (hence the recorder) but the whole out at gunpoint for a guy with a gun is a bit much. It's one thing to approach a dude and be like "excuse me sir, do you have a permit for that firearm?" and go from there versus gun out, cursing, ordering, calling for backup, then lying about what happened (hence why I posted the recording).

I have defended LEOs time and time again on this forum, but I posted this video for a few reasons...

1) I realize that there are bad cops out there, just as cops realize that there are bad civilians out there with guns.
2) Although I'm pro LEO, I'm anti-bad LEO.
3) This should be reposted all over the US to educate police that just because someone has a gun, doesn't make them automatically a criminal.

So, hopefully, we can stay around the facts of the incident and keep the thread civil. Creating a wedge between the armed public and the police doesn't do either side any good. Prejudice on either side is just as ignorant, no mater how you spin it or post how bad your past experiences were. I've been shot at by Muslim extremists, does that mean I should hate all Muslims? Wouldn't hating all Muslims make me prejudiced? Just something to think about...

*edit*

To add a more local incident, I'll refer to something that happened fairly recently in the Tri Cities.

ROGERS v CITY OF KENNEWICK
2006 WL 2244514 / 2006 WL 3147414 / 2007 WL 91472 (2006 / 2007)
U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
A police service dog team was conducting a track / area search in a backyard of a house. The dog located and bit a person, who was sleeping in his daughter's backyard, and then turns out not to be the suspect, he was just an innocent third party.

So here you have an incident where Rogers is sleeping in the backyard of a relative in a sleeping bag. Police chase a dude in the neighborhood and start a search on foot with a K9...K9 hits on this dude and the police apprehend him (they apparently rough him up as well since he was resisting the arrest). All the facts come to light and the dude is released...press gets notified of the story and jumps on it. Rogers wants a public apology from the Kennewick Police Department, but they're not biting (pun intended) so Rogers sues.

It's THIS kind of stuff that makes me worried about being a "police state". Where is the accountability? why was there no apology? What was Rogers doing wrong that could possibly warrant a K9 attack, roughed up and detained? For simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Bah...I'll end this thread with that note.

*Riot Out*

 

[tionico]

He did NOT refuse to get on the ground.... he tried to talk the cop out of forcing him to knee.... the cop went ballistic despite the citizen trying to explain he had a permit, his gun was legal, he intended no harm, was speaking civilly... in spite of the cop's pottymouth, cursing, threats..... so, cop calls for backup, and just about the time we hear the other units zeroing in on the scene, copper gets tough and takes the guy down with what sounds like force.... so cop can appear to be the tough guy got it all under control...... ain't I a good boy now?

as to this: Creating a wedge between the armed public and the police doesn't do either side any good.

so, pray tell, just WHO was "creating the wedge" between a lawfully armed and peaceable citizen and the snot rotton cop we hear so much from in this recording?

In case you aren't aware... most of the folks down in California making a point of open carrying (their local LEA will NOT issue them permist to conceal, their preferred method of being armed, so they're taking the second best approach) have on their persons some sort of recording device, or a remote wireless setup... why? Precisely BECAUSE so many cops are the bad guys, out to harrass, rough up, intimidate, humiliate, frivolously arrest, law abiding and peaceable citizens. Having a recording of rhe incident helps to bring the law-breakers (yes, lawbreakers.... cops refusing to uphold the laws they've sworn to uphold) to justice. It has happened many times in California, it used to happen in Washington until the AG sent round some clarification to all LEA, directing them to cease and desist.... arresting and confiscating firearms lawfully carried in the open. Apparently, California and Pennsylvania are not interested in preserving the constitutional rights of their citizens. They'd rather make them out to be criminals. More lawsuits is apparently the ONLY language these clowns understand. New Jersey seems to be one of the worst.... and the tax dollars continue to be wasted on insane legal fees for public agencies.... just like in this situation. I hope the guy DOES sue..... and big time. Until the citizens footing the bill see enough waste of their tax revenues (wasting LEO time in harrassing others just like the citizens footing the bill, and spending big bucks on legal costs for the ensuing court cases....) and get MAD about it and give the corrupt ones the heave ho, it will continue. Look at the changes in the past half year in New Orleans... the folks there finally gave the toss to their corrupt Chief of Police. The new guy is cleaning things up..... people are liking him. No more "da famly" operations.

 

[Riot]

He did NOT refuse to get on the ground.... he tried to talk the cop out of forcing him to knee.... the cop went ballistic despite the citizen trying to explain he had a permit, his gun was legal, he intended no harm, was speaking civilly... in spite of the cop's pottymouth, cursing, threats..... so, cop calls for backup, and just about the time we hear the other units zeroing in on the scene, copper gets tough and takes the guy down with what sounds like force.... so cop can appear to be the tough guy got it all under control...... ain't I a good boy now?

as to this: Creating a wedge between the armed public and the police doesn't do either side any good.

so, pray tell, just WHO was "creating the wedge" between a lawfully armed and peaceable citizen and the snot rotton cop we hear so much from in this recording?

In case you aren't aware... most of the folks down in California making a point of open carrying (their local LEA will NOT issue them permist to conceal, their preferred method of being armed, so they're taking the second best approach) have on their persons some sort of recording device, or a remote wireless setup... why? Precisely BECAUSE so many cops are the bad guys, out to harrass, rough up, intimidate, humiliate, frivolously arrest, law abiding and peaceable citizens. Having a recording of rhe incident helps to bring the law-breakers (yes, lawbreakers.... cops refusing to uphold the laws they've sworn to uphold) to justice. It has happened many times in California, it used to happen in Washington until the AG sent round some clarification to all LEA, directing them to cease and desist.... arresting and confiscating firearms lawfully carried in the open. Apparently, California and Pennsylvania are not interested in preserving the constitutional rights of their citizens. They'd rather make them out to be criminals. More lawsuits is apparently the ONLY language these clowns understand. New Jersey seems to be one of the worst.... and the tax dollars continue to be wasted on insane legal fees for public agencies.... just like in this situation. I hope the guy DOES sue..... and big time. Until the citizens footing the bill see enough waste of their tax revenues (wasting LEO time in harrassing others just like the citizens footing the bill, and spending big bucks on legal costs for the ensuing court cases....) and get MAD about it and give the corrupt ones the heave ho, it will continue. Look at the changes in the past half year in New Orleans... the folks there finally gave the toss to their corrupt Chief of Police. The new guy is cleaning things up..... people are liking him. No more "da famly" operations.

Your argument is flawed...

Any arguing with a verbal command from an LEO is failure to obey an LEO- therefore you can be viewed as resisting. Nevertheless, the officer's "Reasonable Suspicion" is flawed because he just decides to confront a man with a gun...at gunpoint. And he has no probable cause because no crime has been committed.

So- if we are all the same sheet of music that the individual hasn't committed a crime, then is it safe to say that he can <broken link removed>


I seriously wish some of you guys would try to be more unbiased and educated with your viewpoints in this situation....then maybe more people would be on our side for carrying guns.

 

[tionico]

Your argument is flawed...

Any arguing with a verbal command from an LEO is failure to obey an LEO- therefore you can be viewed as resisting.


wwell, not quite..... THIS cop obviously viewed it as resisting, but the LAW does not. It is against the law to disobey a LAWFUL order of a law enforcement officer. The guy can order me to tie my shoelaces, and I am not bound in law to obey. He orders me to get out ov my car and open the trunk, I am not bound to obey..... assuming (as I will, since I am law abiding and peaceable) he has to probable cause to justify a searth of my vehicle, deemed by the Supreme Court to be in the same category as my home.

Just this week, in my own city of Olympia, the City agreed to a settlement of $260,000 to a woman who had sued for violation of her civil rights and unlawful search. She had been detained, brought downtown to the jail, and three MALE city cops demanded she strip to her underwear. She refused, demanding at least that a female officer be present, They tazed her, subdued her..... she then removed her clothing. There was NO probable cause to suspect weapons, contraband, etc, so well hidden on her person as to warrant her disrobing in front of the three MALE officers with no one else present. She was released, having committed no offense other than their perceived "resisting" their orders. Their orders were unlawful, she was completely within her rights to refuse compliance. She was also right to sue..... and win. The Chief of Police at the time of this travesty was tossed out on his ear by disgruntled voters for his own rotten attitude and, by extention, that of his subordiinate officers. The newly elected replacement seems to be doing a good job cleaning up the department.. a few "bad eggs" are no longer bad Olympia eggs.... attitude adjustment seems to be proceeding apace. "opposite sec" stip searches are specifically forbidden.... unnecessary, as Washington State Law has forbidden them for years, and the cops on the beat should have known that. (I suspect they did... but wanted their own private peep show...... very UNprofessional and abusive of them)

No, only LAWFUL orders given by the police need be obeyed. Of course, in many situations (as in that of the woman mentioned above) wisdom dictates a docile compliance with even unlawful orders.... but there comes a point where one is right to stand one's ground and "just say NO". You risk a serious escalation of violence (as when the man in the Costco was seen to be carrying his pistol on his belt, LEO were summoned, theyb went ballistic, started screaming commands which he didn't obey soon enough to suit them (much commotion and background noise about, more than one cop's voice screaming orders, some conflicting.... ) and so they shot him dead. He was licensed to carry concealed.... his iron was slightly uncovered as he bent over to get something off the floor, some uptight upright female went berko..... now he's dead. He was accosted as he calmly walked across the parking lot toward his car, his business at Costco concluded. No hint of any evil intent or action......

 

[Riot]

Your argument is flawed...

Any arguing with a verbal command from an LEO is failure to obey an LEO- therefore you can be viewed as resisting.


wwell, not quite..... THIS cop obviously viewed it as resisting, but the LAW does not. It is against the law to disobey a LAWFUL order of a law enforcement officer. The guy can order me to tie my shoelaces, and I am not bound in law to obey. He orders me to get out ov my car and open the trunk, I am not bound to obey..... assuming (as I will, since I am law abiding and peaceable) he has to probable cause to justify a searth of my vehicle, deemed by the Supreme Court to be in the same category as my home.

Just this week, in my own city of Olympia, the City agreed to a settlement of $260,000 to a woman who had sued for violation of her civil rights and unlawful search. She had been detained, brought downtown to the jail, and three MALE city cops demanded she strip to her underwear. She refused, demanding at least that a female officer be present, They tazed her, subdued her..... she then removed her clothing. There was NO probable cause to suspect weapons, contraband, etc, so well hidden on her person as to warrant her disrobing in front of the three MALE officers with no one else present. She was released, having committed no offense other than their perceived "resisting" their orders. Their orders were unlawful, she was completely within her rights to refuse compliance. She was also right to sue..... and win. The Chief of Police at the time of this travesty was tossed out on his ear by disgruntled voters for his own rotten attitude and, by extention, that of his subordiinate officers. The newly elected replacement seems to be doing a good job cleaning up the department.. a few "bad eggs" are no longer bad Olympia eggs.... attitude adjustment seems to be proceeding apace. "opposite sec" stip searches are specifically forbidden.... unnecessary, as Washington State Law has forbidden them for years, and the cops on the beat should have known that. (I suspect they did... but wanted their own private peep show...... very UNprofessional and abusive of them)

No, only LAWFUL orders given by the police need be obeyed. Of course, in many situations (as in that of the woman mentioned above) wisdom dictates a docile compliance with even unlawful orders.... but there comes a point where one is right to stand one's ground and "just say NO". You risk a serious escalation of violence (as when the man in the Costco was seen to be carrying his pistol on his belt, LEO were summoned, theyb went ballistic, started screaming commands which he didn't obey soon enough to suit them (much commotion and background noise about, more than one cop's voice screaming orders, some conflicting.... ) and so they shot him dead. He was licensed to carry concealed.... his iron was slightly uncovered as he bent over to get something off the floor, some uptight upright female went berko..... now he's dead. He was accosted as he calmly walked across the parking lot toward his car, his business at Costco concluded. No hint of any evil intent or action......

I think you and I are on the same page, we just don't know it yet. I was stating that he actually was resisting when he didn't get on the ground....but legally he's within his right to do so if he didn't do anything wrong or the officer didn't have enough probable cause to believe that he committed a crime.

I'm agreeing that he was okay to just stand there and stare at the cop like "wtf"? Since he didn't do anything wrong and the officer's probable cause was flawed. You, however, stated that he didn't refuse anything- but he did. The cop ordered him to the ground at gunpoint and he refused. Was he within his right to do so? I think so. I wonder what would have happened if the guy would've just turned around and walked away?

Cop pulls gun, yells at him to get on the ground...subject ignores him, turns around and walks away, cop tases him, cuffs him up and throws him in his car. Then what? What crime did he commit? Where is the officer's "Probable Cause" to detain him in the first place? I think a lot more crap would've came down the pipe against PA for that one.

*edit*

And yes, the law still views it as resisting. Albeit, resisting unlawful detainment but still resisting. It's called "Passive Resistance", you're not going to win that argument, sorry.

 

[jgeist]

Cop pulls gun, yells at him to get on the ground...subject ignores him, turns around and walks away, cop tases him, cuffs him up and throws him in his car. Then what? What crime did he commit? Where is the officer's "Probable Cause" to detain him in the first place? I think a lot more crap would've came down the pipe against PA for that one.

*edit*

And yes, the law still views it as resisting. Albeit, resisting unlawful detainment but still resisting. It's called "Passive Resistance", you're not going to win that argument, sorry.

Well he did not attempt to walk away, if he did he would have been guilty of fleeing or evasion...

"In a 5-4 decision decided in January, the United States Supreme Court effectively dished up more power onto the plates of law enforcement officers, giving them the authority to detain a person who flees at the mere sight of a policeman. Unprovoked flight upon the sight of police, said the Court, is the consummate act of evasion. Although it is not necessarily indicative of wrongdoing, it clearly is suggestive of such. Thus, in determining reasonable suspicion, the police can make commonsense judgments and inferences about human behavior. Although the concept of "reasonable suspicion" still remains somewhat intact &#8211; that is, the Court did not endorse a "bright-line" rule &#8211; the scales of justice are now clearly tipped in favor of the State."

Again he did not flee or evade, so that kind of muddies up the facts. He did not "refuse" to follow a lawful order so there is nothing that the LEO's can do except get pissed because some civilian did not bow to their commands. Well poor babies, if the LEO's thought that they could have arrested this guy for any reason, then they would have done it.. He broke no laws, other than having balls bigger than his brains and they were forced to let him go about his way.. Now they have bruised egos and a pending lawsuit. This should happen more often for sure...

 

[Riot]

Well he did not attempt to walk away, if he did he would have been guilty of fleeing or evasion...

"In a 5-4 decision decided in January, the United States Supreme Court effectively dished up more power onto the plates of law enforcement officers, giving them the authority to detain a person who flees at the mere sight of a policeman. Unprovoked flight upon the sight of police, said the Court, is the consummate act of evasion. Although it is not necessarily indicative of wrongdoing, it clearly is suggestive of such. Thus, in determining reasonable suspicion, the police can make commonsense judgments and inferences about human behavior. Although the concept of "reasonable suspicion" still remains somewhat intact &#8211; that is, the Court did not endorse a "bright-line" rule &#8211; the scales of justice are now clearly tipped in favor of the State."

Again he did not flee or evade, so that kind of muddies up the facts. He did not "refuse" to follow a lawful order so there is nothing that the LEO's can do except get pissed because some civilian did not bow to their commands. Well poor babies, if the LEO's thought that they could have arrested this guy for any reason, then they would have done it.. He broke no laws, other than having balls bigger than his brains and they were forced to let him go about his way.. Now they have bruised egos and a pending lawsuit. This should happen more often for sure...

You made me look that one up since I was just recently told that you (as a passenger) could get out of a car that was pulled over and walk away.

The case you are referring to is Illinois v. Wardlow, and you should also put in the Court's conclusion.

When uniformed police officers are in an area known for heavy narcotics trafficking&#8211;an area upon which they are converging with the expectation that they might encounter a crowd of people, including lookouts for the drug traffickers as well as customers for the narcotic products, and if a person who is in the same area takes flight when he sees the officers, the officers have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity which allows them to make a temporary seizure, for investigative purposes only, of the person who took flight. Remember: flight at sight is insufficient for reasonable suspicion; "presence in a high crime area" also is insufficient. But combine both and a temporary seizure may be justified.

It's called "totality of circumstances". You can't just detain people running. What if I was in a jogging suit, headphones and sunglasses on a running route? What if the officer isn't in uniform, just screaming and pointing a gun?

You've got to do a lot more research before you try to school me on the law...look up "Objective Reasonableness" sometime.

 

[tionico]

Hmmm... the cop DID dump the guy onto the ground, and as far as I could tell from the soundtrack we heard, cuffed him and popped him into the back of the squad car. There he sat, listening to the cop radio and a bunch of Philly's "finest" cursing and swearing and abusing him verbally. As I understood it, after our star copper lied to his duty sergeant, the sarge reminded the dumb sap that it IS legal for a permitted firearms owner to carry openly in public.... and they let him go. So, he WAS detained and roughed up beyond anything reasonable or lawful.

 

[Riot]

Hmmm... the cop DID dump the guy onto the ground, and as far as I could tell from the soundtrack we heard, cuffed him and popped him into the back of the squad car. There he sat, listening to the cop radio and a bunch of Philly's "finest" cursing and swearing and abusing him verbally. As I understood it, after our star copper lied to his duty sergeant, the sarge reminded the dumb sap that it IS legal for a permitted firearms owner to carry openly in public.... and they let him go. So, he WAS detained and roughed up beyond anything reasonable or lawful.

I think the backup officer dumped him...when the SGT called for backup of an armed, uncooperative subject his partner took it in "good faith" that the subject was unlawfully resisting and could use proper force to detain him.

*edit*

Let me explain, if you and I were both cops and I wanted to pick on some random dude without cause- if I called you over and told you that this random dude robbed a store and is a wanted felon; then you run over, try to cuff him, wrestle around and have to use force then cuff him up you cannot get into trouble for it since you took what I told you "in good faith" that he committed a crime. So I would be in trouble, not you.

 

[lonegunman]

About five years ago I had an out of control cop try and kill me for getting mail out of my companies mailbox. As I was standing at the box sorting mail a random cop drove by, I waved(with all five fingers) and headed for the front gate. He slammed on the brakes, did a backwards burnout down the street, skidded to a stop, jumped out of his car, drew his gun and began screaming like a loon and threatening to kill me if I did not lay down in a slush filled puddle. ( Same language as those Philly cops) I told him to frigging shoot me because I was not going to crawl in a puddle.

So he called a backup and they spent 20 minutes trying to figure out why I was working there and why we got mail every day. After officer Looney calmed down, he said he had to threaten to kill me because I was carrying a hand held radio and he didn't know if I needed help(figure this jibberish out and win a prize). Even his supervisor was to confused to explain his behavior when he called to apologize the next day.

This is just my opinion, but 90% of cops do not know, nor do they care to know the laws they are supposed to enforce. They do not respect citizens and consider themselves our overlords and us their servants or subjects. If they passed laws tomorrow putting every third person to death, they would gladly enforce them. The police are not required to protect you or to respond to your 911 calls, they protect "society in general". The Supreme Court has ruled more than once on this fact. I try and be respectful but I do assert my rights and I always plan on defending myself as if they did not exist, since their response time is non-existant in most cases.

I think this guy was a lot closer to getting murdered than he could possibly imagine.

 

[capdek]

I don't care how polite he was being, he was acting like an a**. A permit to carry does not give you a right to argue with cops or refuse to comply with their instructions. They still have authority over you. If they are not aware of the exact law they will sort it out after they figure out if you're legal or not. Why don't people get this? And since when does a CCW allow you to open carry?

In a free republic, the police are only supposed to have authority over you if there is reasonable evidence that you are in violation of the law. From all accounts, there was no reasonable evidence that this guy was in violation of the law.

What you're suggesting is that it is perfectly acceptable for police to harass, degrade and abuse any citizen who acts in a way they deem inappropriate - regardless of whether there is any evidence they are breaking any law. Taken to it's logical conclusion, you would condone the police verbally degrading and physically abusing your 15 year-old daughter because they screamed 'stop you f***ing little 'c*nt' from behind her as she was exiting the mall - say, after receiving a report that a young girl loosely matching your daughter's description had shoplifted some item - and your daughter didn't immediately comply with their abusive, foul-mouthed orders because it never dawned on her that such abusive orders could be directed at her. Frankly, I find this behavior unacceptable in a free republic such as ours. And I am convinced most honorable police officers would agree with me.

I strongly doubt that most police officers do not know the law. In my opinion, I believe most police officers do know the laws regarding open carry in their various jurisdictions. But I believe a small number of police officers are more concerned these days with their own personal safety rather than respecting the law and protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens. There is ample evidence to support the conclusion that if someone - anyone - is a potential threat - even if a preponderance of the evidence suggests they are not an immediate threat and are not in violation of any law - some number of police officers today will err on the side of their own personal safety and eliminate the threat - even to the point of killing a law-abiding citizen they deem threatening. In this case, there is no evidence whatsoever that the individual in question did anything threatening - other than exercise his right to open-carry a firearm as allowed by his State. Whether you agree or disagree with open carry should not be part of the equation (personally, I choose concealed carry over open carry). If open carry is legal in a specific jurisdiction, then the police in that jurisdiction must respect this fact in exercising their sworn duties as police officers - and I'm sure most do. However, the evidence in this case suggests this officer failed to properly exercise his sworn duty as a police officer. Since the evidence suggests this individual was not acting in a threatening way, I suspect the officer was not just erring on the side of personal safety, but was actually trying to intimidate and punish this individual for engaging in a perfectly legal activity this officers personally disagrees with - an activity bye-the-way that amounts to a civil right according to the U.S. Constitution. And that, quite frankly, is an even more egregious violation of the oath this officer took when he was sworn-in.

 

[jgeist]

You made me look that one up since I was just recently told that you (as a passenger) could get out of a car that was pulled over and walk away.

It's called "totality of circumstances". You can't just detain people running. What if I was in a jogging suit, headphones and sunglasses on a running route? What if the officer isn't in uniform, just screaming and pointing a gun?

You've got to do a lot more research before you try to school me on the law...look up "Objective Reasonableness" sometime.

Maybe the perp was actually a female stripper with a thong bikini and a whip on her hip and the cop was actually a pimp pointing a dildo at her... May then "..." Seems like the fact of the case as we are able to hear are best stuck to in a discussion, as we can make up any scenario that would offer any conclusion...

 

[RVTECH]

After reading most of the posts I have a couple questions:
Are LEO's not concerned with the possible consequences of their actions?
Are LEO's more concerned for their own safety and therefore believe facing consequences (if any) for their actions is better than the alternatives? (injury to themselves or bystanders)
Are LEO's not concerned with the consequences of their actions because they believe the have an 'invisible' shield around them that will protect them regardless? (IE. they system they work under, etc)

 

[RallySoob]

some people don't realize you HAVE to obey the police even if their probable cause is totally unreasonable. When a GUN IS INVOLVED your only hope is that the situation falls in your favor during court at a later date. Today you are the cops b$%#& so deal with it best you can. You have 2 options, one being obey and the second being resist. There is no gray area in between and your not going to talk a cop out of anything at that point so don't try.

 

[Riot]

After reading most of the posts I have a couple questions:
Are LEO's not concerned with the possible consequences of their actions?
Yes, they are...most are actually more afraid of being sued than being shot at
Are LEO's more concerned for their own safety and therefore believe facing consequences (if any) for their actions is better than the alternatives? (injury to themselves or bystanders).
I'll I'm going to say on this one is that the way you perceive an incident and the officer perceives it are always going to be totally different...hence the "ojective reasonableness" clause in the standard against LEOs.
Are LEO's not concerned with the consequences of their actions because they believe the have an 'invisible' shield around them that will protect them regardless? (IE. they system they work under, etc)
see above...

Bold- mine

 

[rusobr2]

it really dosen't matter who's right or wrong at the moment ! the cop told him to hit the deck,and he refused !! one thing a LEO wants is the upperhand,their trained that way !! i have found out --that when it comes to firearms troubles--the one carrying is guilty ! now do what is asked of you , with no questions asked-----ok now were getting it ! now, and only now, you have the oppurtunity to prove your innocence , and not while your standing ingaged in an argument with a LEO. do you really think the LEO would have called in all the backup, if this guy would have done what was asked of him ? you could tell the cop was on edge,but the OC/CC wasn't , and he was going to do everything in his power to stay cool----------cuz he's the one with the recorder! LOL!!! if you read into it a bit, you find out, right out of the gate he's looking for second attorney ,and now--- ---- once everyone listens to the tape being played , the story seems to be on hold ! "wuzzzzzzzzz up ?"

my thoughts only.........steven

 

[RVTECH]

one thing a LEO wants is the upperhand,their trained that way !!

Are they trained to use profanity, "scream like a loon", "freak out at the sight of a gun" and otherwise display hysterical, out of control behavior to gain the upper hand? Obviously not but this behavior is evidence of fear which leads to irrational actions. Most people, if they acted in this manner on the job, would no doubt be dealt with harshly by their supervisor or other management.

 

[Redcap]

some people don't realize you HAVE to obey the police even if their probable cause is totally unreasonable. When a GUN IS INVOLVED your only hope is that the situation falls in your favor during court at a later date. Today you are the cops b$%#& so deal with it best you can. You have 2 options, one being obey and the second being resist. There is no gray area in between and your not going to talk a cop out of anything at that point so don't try.

Bullbubblegum.